I propose the following as Article N of the Constitution. Please give me your feedback, positive or negative.


Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions
not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution or
subordinate laws (if any), are presumed to be within the
right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution
or its subordinate laws (if any) may be substituted by other
similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the
spirit of these rules.

So long as the ruleset itself is very clear about what it does not allow, this is very good.

very good, it will make the ruleset very permissive

"all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution or subordinate laws (if any), are presumed to be within the right of every citizen."

Can you provide an example?

When constructing a clause like this I think the phrase *or subordinate laws (if any)* should not be included.

When constructing a clause like this I think the phrase *or subordinate laws (if any)* should not be included.
Indeed, as it may make it seem that there are hidden "unwritten rules" for the game.

Very nice...it looks good to me...

This permissive law is really good but I still don't know what "subordinate laws" mean. Being vague screws up laws you know.

This permissive law is really good but I still don't know what "subordinate laws" mean. Being vague screws up laws you know.
Then we have 50+ JR's to deal with...

How about "Actions prescribed by this Constitution or its written subordinate laws (if any) ..."? This will limit the subordinate laws to only the code of laws (and code of standards?).

I love the concept, and the idea is something very important to keep in mind during the game.

In practice, I think this clause alone will be good for 40 or so PI/CC's during the game. It basically opens the window for every internet lawyer around to jam up the demo game.

How about "Actions prescribed by this Constitution or its written subordinate laws (if any) ..."? This will limit the subordinate laws to only the code of laws (and code of standards?).
much better :)

I love the concept, and the idea is something very important to keep in mind during the game.

In practice, I think this clause alone will be good for 40 or so PI/CC's during the game. It basically opens the window for every internet lawyer around to jam up the demo game.

I will agree with Bill on this. A contemporary example is the US Constitution, and it's amendments, which grant to the States all powers not given to the Federal Government. The sheer number of cases I have seen over just this is staggering.

Where do you draw the line? From what I can tell, much of our Constitution will be vague and fuzzy. This invites trouble, and easily has the potential to ruin the game. Consider this, in very few places (looking at several templates) is it stated don't do this or don't do that. That's a lot of room our there.

Put something like this in the preamble, or make it a permanent question in all Judicial elections. Putting this in the Con has the potential for disaster.

Regardless, my suggestion for wording would be:
Article N: Rights reserved to the people
As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions
not forbidden by forum rules, or by the laws of
COUNTRY_NAME, are within the right of every citizen.


Clear and straightforward statement of the idea. The second sentance is both vague and redundant, so scrap it. By stating this as "forum rules, or by the laws of COUNTRY_NAME", it covers all laws/ruling/etc that we might come up with. After all, the Constitution is also a law.

My preference, however, is that this is not in the Constitution, but is a question for Justices. That's a much better way to handle it. I can almost assure you that otherwise, someone will be elected who was not asked about their viewpoint, and has a different slant on things. A ruling will be made, chaos will erupt, CC's will fly, madness will ensue, people will quit and the game will, once again, be near death. And no, I will not be that person.

-- Ravensfire

-- Ravensfire

I agree we should just leave this article out of the constitution.

I basically agree with this Article. Unfortunately, it would require a restrictive Constitution, which you people had and refused to read.

Basically, if the rules written do not cover an action, it is not illegal. If there is anything in the rules that forbid an action, it is illegal. It's that easy.

I say we give the people the right to recall an executive official (governor, minister, president) by a poll. This is a democracy game, so lets have a democratic option as well as the judicial one.

Country name is Fanatchika, as I understand it. The "ch" supposably is more Japanese or something.

Proposed Poll For Article N

Article N: Rights reserved to the people

As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.

Proposed Poll For Article N

Article N: Rights reserved to the people

As provided by Article A of this constitution, all actions not forbidden by forum rules, or by this Constitution, are presumed to be within the right of every citizen. Actions prescribed by this Constitution may be substituted by other similar actions, provided such substitution lies within the spirit of these rules.

This captures exactly what I was trying to say.

Take the example from DG4 where person A appointed person B to an office, and then person C wanted a refusal poll. Chaos ensued because person A refused to post the poll given the rules did not say the appointing official must post the poll, and person C refused to post the poll because the rules did not explicitly say who should post it. With this article in place, anyone could post the poll without fear of a CC.

There are other examples which I won't go into right now... :mischief:

Im glad I could help you daveshack ;)

What is going to be important during the next little while is that judges respect Proposed Article J above all other ones (excepting forum related ones). The will of the people should be defended by the judiciary first. My main reason for attempting to be elected to the judiciary.

Ratification Poll Now Open:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94842